Route 60 Hyundai v. Alascio

NOTE: The information and commentary contained in this database entry are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information is likely to be in dispute. Information contained in this entry is current as of the last event mentioned in the "Description" section below; additional proceedings might have taken place in this matter since this event.

Counsel for Route 60 Hyundai, a car dealership in Florida, sent a demand letter to Thomas Alascio after he posted critical comments about the dealership on Twitter and Facebook. The letter accused Alascio of defaming the company and demanded that... read full description

Parties

Party Issuing Legal Threat:

Party Receiving Legal Threat:

Route 60 Hyundai

Thomas J. Alascio

Type of Party:

Type of Party:

Organization

Individual

Location of Party:

Location of Party:

Florida

Florida

Legal Counsel:

Legal Counsel:

Douglas J. Thompson - Law Offices of Douglas E. Thompson

Marc J. Randazza - Randazza Legal Group

Description

Counsel for Route 60 Hyundai, a car dealership in Florida, sent a demand letter to Thomas Alascio after he posted critical comments about the dealership on Twitter and Facebook. The letter accused Alascio of defaming the company and demanded that he cease and desist from making futher defamatory comments and take all steps necessary to remove comments about Route 60 from the Internet.

Alascio published a series of comments over a two-week period in October 2009 after a dispute with a Route 60 employee. His tweets took the form of a running joke harping on Route 60's alleged inadequacies, saying that Route 60 is "the worst car dealership on the planet," that it "sucks," and that its service "stinks," among other things.

After receiving the demand letter, Alascio retained Marc Randazza as counsel, and Randazza sent a response letter disputing the legal and factual sufficiency of Route 60's claims. In particular, Randazza argued that all of Alascio's alleged statements were statements of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole, which are not capble of supporting a defamation action. In addition, Randazza warned that his client would pursue sanctions and file a counterclaim for abuse of process if Route 60 filed a complaint.

Navigation

Copyright 2007-13 Digital Media Law Project and respective authors. Except where otherwise noted,content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License: Details.
Use of this site is pursuant to our Terms of Use and Privacy Notice.